Here’s a short but informative discussion between Naomi Oreskes and Australian politician Nick Minchin. He is known for his denial of human inputs to climate change and for attacking the science. Oreskes suggests to him that his reasons for denial are not scientific. That he should accept the science and get on a deal with the political and financial issues which really motivate him.
This reminds me of the comment made by a well-known US climate change denier, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). When debating his position, and his attacks on science, with a TV interviewer he made this remarkable admission:
“I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this. I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost.”
In short, learning about the (supposed) high cost of the solution is what turned him from a believer in climate science to a denier.
What a lovely, civil conversation with clear respect from and for both sides. We simply do not see this kind of discussion in the public sphere here in the United States.
ABC in Austalia tonite is very informative about the need to act for renewable energy
Nick Minchin and Anna Rose,who is the most wonderful young woman have starred in a great doco
“I can change your mind about clImate”
And subsequent Q and A The Climate Debate
Check out ABC website
Hope you get to see in NZ
Chris KL
This is interesting, I find that when the climate alarmists attack the skeptics, their real motivating beliefs are political and religious. I wish this Oreskes person would write a book about that too.
Andy – Lovelock must have realised the cost of the whole scam. Apparently that would be all it takes to “turn[ed] him from a believer in climate science to a denier.” Nothing to do with eventually being convinced by the empirical data that the suppositions upon which CAGW and GCMs are built are fallacious, and admitting that there are major flaws in the theory of CAGW.
Interesting to note from that quote – one is either a “believer” or a “denier”, indicating the faith-based perception of CAGW.
Chris Kyle – here’s Jo Nova’s insight into how this ABC charade was configured:
Joanne Nova
April 26, 2012 at 9:24 pm · Reply
Well well. I just watched the online streaming version. We did 4 hours of footage at our house, and they showed not one single point I made, not one answer to Anna Roses questions. I repeated my favourite lines about 28 million weather balloons, 3000 ocean buoys off by heart at least 4 times. Obviously everything I said was too “dangerous”. But we have the full tape of the whole event, so sooner or later the world will see the parts that the ABC deemed to be not “interesting” to the Australian public. So all in all, pretty much as we expected. They trimmed it down to the point where it’s tame, they gave the alarmists the last word (they always do), and while they were happy to grill us about where our money came from just like Wendy Carlisle, when the question backfires (because we are not shills for anyone) they won’t show it. We can’t let the public know that Jo Nova and David are volunteers.
Well, well, it looks like the denier Internet silo has developed a leak.
Andy, you know we have thoroughly been over the 10 year no warming fallacy. Lovelock’s assertion crumbles under the simple request for him to put confidence levels on his claim. How can he make any claims about the global warming trend reported in the scientific literature of the order of a degree or so per century when 10 years data only allow detection of a trend outside the range +/- 4.5 degree per century. Anything from -4.5 to +4.5 is not significantly different to zero for such data.
This was thoroughly thrashed out on Richard’s blog.
As for the possibility of Lovelock being senile – unfortunately we are all prone to that with old age. And of course there are also other ailments we are prone to.
But let’s just deal with facts. He has no scientific basis for his claim as any simple statistical analysis of 10 years data will show.
@ Richard Christie
Not sure why you link to a completely different story, Richard. Point is, Jo Nova says out of 4 hours taping, the ABC “showed not one single point I made, not one answer to Anna Roses questions.” That’s a wee bit different from being ambushed by unfair questions.
I have added a couple of links to the post – one to the documentary from which the clip was take (“I Can Change Your Mind About..Climate”) and the other the the ABC Q&A debate that occurred after the documentary was screened.
The comment above from Chris Kyle Link refers to these.
Andy, even Steve Jones says there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 10 years – that’s just a scientific fact which is not at all surprising to him or anyone who understands the science.
With the large variation in temperatures it is impossible to pick up a trend of the order reported in the scientific literature in such a short time period.
To just repeat that no statistically significant trend has been observed is dishonest. It’s confirmation bias. Because you ignore the fact that no detection of that trend is possible over that short time period.
You of course have a political motive in repeating this fallacy. It’s a common fallacy used by denies.
But you should know better than repeat it here as it has all been explained to you, with examples, using short words, repeatedly and slowly, on Richard’s blog. Even he now suggests he was making that claim just to “have a bit of fun.”
Did I suggest it was science? You seem to miss my point again Richard.
Here’s the thing. You guys fervently believe the earth is headed for hell in a handbasket unless we act with forced measures right now. Fair enough – I respect your belief system. I respect your freedom to voice those and to raise red flags where appropriate. However, please recognise that the policies your movement advocates have real repercussions to ordinary hard-working real-life parents and grand-parents. The heading of this article is that those who raise questions about whether your flag is a false flag or not are diverting attention away from the real issues. My point is, by highlighting an article such as this, (albeit in the popular press), these are the real issues. If the government of NZ was to ban log fires, for example, because it was determined that the carbon footprint of such devices adversely impacted our Kyoto obligations, my family would be mostly cold most of the winter, my electricity bills would double and my family’s health would be a constant battle. This is real. No distraction. I am not a scientist Richard. I go by logic and facts. If you want to show me your facts about the proven mechanisms (proven by empirical observations, not models) by which a doubling of CO2 will take this planet to hell in a handbasket, then have at it. Meanwhile, please recognise that I am concerned for the hardships your movement is imposing upon the general population, myself included, while derogatorily labeling anyone with such concerns a “Denier”, for God’s sake!
I watched the Q&A discussion and though it was worthwhile. All viewpoints are represented in the panel and audience and I thought some important ideas got through.
Really liked that they actually checked some of the claims made by the deniers with an actual climate scientist who was able to correct their misleading information.
Mike, you are not warranted to refer to people here as a movement or to attribute the claims you make to them. Deal with he issues.
The fact is that the science is pretty well understood. The practical steps required to accomadate the problems are not immediately obvious. There a matter for us all to work out. Scientists have no special expertise in these political issues. We must all contribute.
It does no good to avoid those practical, political, and economic issues by telling lies about the science. Or by slandering the honest experts.
To do so is like a silly teenager who wishes to smoke and not face up to possible health consequence down the line. To in fact claim that the scientists who identified the health problems of smoking are telling lies.
Wow, Mike Jowsey gets his science from the Daily Mail.
Is that stupid or is that stupid?
Hey, go easy on the deniers. Where would they be without their newspapers and no-name blogs?
Here’s the thing. You medical scientist types fervently believe that I will die from lung cancer unless I have an operation right now. Fair enough – I respect your belief system. I respect your freedom to voice those and to raise red flags where appropriate. However, please recognise that the policies your health service advocates have real repercussions to ordinary hard-working real-life parents and grand-parents. Those who raise questions about whether your belief that smoking causes cancer is a false flag or not are diverting attention away from the real issues. My point is, by highlighting an article such as this, (albeit in the popular press), these are the real issues. If the government of NZ was to recommend that I undergo surgery for lung cancer for example, because it was determined that I had cancer that was malignant, my family would be very stressed by such terrible news for most of the winter, my medical bills would double and my personal health would be a constant battle. This is real. No distraction. I am not a doctor Richard. I go by logic and facts. If you want to show me your facts about the proven mechanisms (proven by empirical observations, not models) by which smoking cigarettes will actually cause me to have lung cancer, then have at it. Meanwhile, please recognise that I am concerned for the hardships your national health service is imposing upon the general population, myself included, while derogatorily labeling anyone with such concerns a “Denier”, for God’s sake!”
If you read Mike’s comment with any sense of neutrality – its is clear he is requesting a rational debate around real science and facts. What could be wrong with that? I also note someone has scolded him on referring to ‘you guys’ as being ‘a group/ movement’, whilst the very title of your own article is in fact labeling him as being part of ‘a group’. Another poster was obviously upset by Mike’s opinions and decided to attack him personally. This is one way traffic guys- why don’t you try and actually address his questions/ concerns to we can in fact have real debate? Is that not what this website is for? I also note Mike is the only poster who bothered to check his spelling and grammar- more thought out perhaps?
@Ken: “Mike, you are not warranted to refer to people here as a movement or to attribute the claims you make to them. Deal with he [sic] issues.”
Oh – ok Ken – so you are ‘warranted’ to call me a denier, but I am not ‘warranted’ to call your cause a movement. Well, my apologies, I did not immediately recognise the hypocrisy. My bad. Meanwhile, all your ad-homs aside, allow me to do a point-by-point, seeing as you ‘unloaded’:
The fact is that the science is pretty well understood. The practical steps required to accomadate [sic] the problems are not immediately obvious. There [sic] a matter for us all to work out. Scientists have no special expertise in these political issues. We must all contribute.
The factopinion is that the science is ‘understood’. CORRECT me if I’m wrong. (Sorry about the caps-lok). THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED BUD.
The practical steps… blah blah blah.. How about your article title dude – “Science denial is a diversion from the real problems”. And yet you now say the steps [to mitigate the real problems] are not immediately obvious. OH YES THEY ARE! (Caps-lok- my bad). We, the General Populace see and recognise your [Final] Solution, and have a few wee qualms about it.
“There [sic] a matter for us to all work out.” Well, I agree fully. Let’s work it out, Kenny. Because the brown matter is eventually gonna hit the rotating device when your movement fails to deliver the promise of hell in a handbasket. (Which is kinda happening already – no hell so far.)
Scientists have no special expertise in these political issues. Woah, big fella. You would like us to think that, wouldn’t you? The fact is, scientists are joined at the hip to funding. Current funding comes from government and/or corporate agendas. You think that the scientists switch off their political radar because they have some ethics about which side of the bread the butter is on? Please! I would like to meet just ONE.
Prove me wrong. Otherwise I believe I am ‘warranted’ to call it a movement.
Finally, “We must all contribute.” Riiiight, Kenny – all who are on the same page must contribute. Anybody else is a denier, who cannot possibly contribute because they are mentally deficient and in need of treatment. Open your parachute, Kenny. Maybe we are all on the same side mate. Scary, huh – there is only one third rock from this sun, so we had better figure out what is right rather than who is right, pretty damn soon.
Cohen, if Mike is asking for a “rational debate around real science and facts” then why doesn’t he join in? I have repeated again and again the statistical fallacy of their claims on what the last 10 years data show. Neither Mike, Andy or any of their mates will face up to that. They refuse to accept that science because it conflicts with their emotional or political agenda.
You say-“the very title of your own article is in fact labeling him as being part of ‘a group’. ” Bloody hell, what part of “Science denial is a diversion from the real problems” even mentions Mike.! You do sound like you are blinded by your own agenda.
But let’s take you up on your claimed desire to “have real debate.” What is your response to the 10 years data fallacy I have been discussing? Do you accept the science I have presented? If not, what are your objections to that science? Show me where you think I am wrong.
The fact is, scientists are joined at the hip to funding. Current funding comes from government and/or corporate agendas. You think that the scientists switch off their political radar because they have some ethics about which side of the bread the butter is on? Please! I would like to meet just ONE.
Kenny, mate. You miss the point. You nitpik on some other point: ” (Which is kinda happening already – no hell so far.)” No hell so far Ken. And your movement wants more tax from me for WHAT?
OK Andy, I accept you don’t understand the science. Again and again I have had to show you and your mates the fallacy of using 10 years data and you can’t fault my science. You just rely in quoting Lovelock, etc. Or falling back on a conspiracy theory. if you understood you would engage with the science. You don’t.
Of course there are huge areas we need more data and understanding. That is the real nature of scientific knowledge. It must be provisional. But grown ups are used to dealing with that and making sensible decisions on the basis of what we know.
It is childish to pretend we don’t know what we do and to shoot the messenger. It is just not honest to attack honest scientists the way the denier groups do.
Richie – I am very aquainted with the workings of academia. If your don;t get published, you die. To get published you must get funded. Funding comes from the Powers That Be. If you want to label that reality as a “konspiracy”, then go get yourself a PhD and prove me wrong.
Kenny, Kenny, Kenny – you lose the debate entirely when you call your opponent a childish denier. Just address my post. Hell, you could get bulk traffic if you handled it right. Maybe even a Greenpeace sponsorship?
Anyhoo guys, it’s been luverly, but I’ve got a real job too. Catch you all later. Take care.
No Mike I don’t want any tax from you. I want a bit of honesty. If you are going to question the science then do so honestly. Face up to what scientists are saying and if you think they are honestly wrong show them where. Don’t divert by talking about tax.
If you think I am wrong about the 10 year fallacy then show me. Your refusal to engage will just confirm my suspicions.
But a real honest engagement will be very welcome.
OK Mike, you have a “real job to do.” (what is it by the way?).
And for that you get paid. That’s the nature of a job – you get paid for results that your employer wants.
Now scientists are in the same boat. They get paid for discovering and understanding things. Society wants us to produce these results. They have paid for our training so we can do that. Climate scientists have been paid to do a job – not to invent a story (theologians would be employed if that’s what society wanted). But to find out what the facts are so that we can take action if anything is indicated.
It’s sensible for scientists to employ experts and be prepared to face up to the facts they reveal. (Just imagine if New Zealanders had refused to accept the discovery of Co deficiency in the Central North Island just because the scientists were funded to find the cause of animal problems!).
It is childish to reject the findings of experts out of hand. And even more childish to slander them by pretending they have made up a story because they are paid.
Are we to take from that you are a fraud – you don’t really do your job. And the proof is you get paid for it?
Mike, I think you should try rereading what I have written. I do not call anyone childish. But I do say that some arguments are so bad they must be considered childish.
Perhaps you yourself are actually aware of how silly the arguments you use are. And therefore take my judgement as a personal attack rather than a simple description of the quality of the argument. So you take it to heart.
Simple solution. Stop your own personal attacks on honest scientists (they are defamatory) and actually engage with the science if you do think they are wrong.
If you aren’t capable of doing that my suggestion is to accept what the experts are telling us and get on with debating possible solutions. That problem itself is big enough for us without charging at windmills.
Ken, since you are such a fan of “honest scientists”, you should justify Jim Salinger’s attempts to get Chris de Freitas sacked from his job at Auckland University (well documented in the climategate 2 emails).
These actions were of course fully endorsed by all your “honest scientists”.
Please cite one personal attack on honest scientists that I have made. May I remind you, Ken, that I believe that we ALL live on this little third rock and I want to know why you want extra taxation from me.
Well Mike, since you’ve so roundly defeated Ken in argument by cleverly declaring him to be the loser you’ll have no objection carrying on the discussion with Cedric and me.
Tell us how the funding/tax thing influences the science.
Andy – another diversion away from the science. You keep claiming that there has been no warming for 10 years. You refuse to respond to the statistical analysis I have presented and seem to think referring to Lovelock or whoever is sufficient.
It isn’t.
Diverting to other issues is just a Gish Gallop. If you can’t fault my analysis be a man and accept it.
How I yearn for the old days when I could have a spirited debate with other scientists. Sure it could get personal and silly. But we always came back to the real issues. To reality. To what the facts were telling us.
Reality kept us honest.
And that’s what we were paid for.
Don’t you realize it’s no good complaining to me about the tax you pay? You seem to have a real obsession about it.
You keep claiming that there has been no warming for 10 years.
I am not claiming anything. I am merely reporting that there has been a hiatus or slowing in warming for 10 years which is fully supported by the peer reviewed literature and most climate scientists
Richard – you should now leave the conversation mate. Have another Woody and check the conversation out in the morning. “Weather does not equal climate” my planet-loving friend. (P.S. I love the planet too- see you when it rotates another 145.78 degrees. We are all on the same planet.).
Actually Andy, I’ll not argue with your observation, only with the way you use it.
It’s part of your modus operandi, here and on other sites, to drop ambiguous information into discussions. You are fully aware that scientifically or mathematically challenged readers won’t understand the implications of the material under discussion.
“the model algorithms are unsolvable resulting in approximations” , “there has been a hiatus in the warming trend since 1998” etc etc.
You do this on purpose and continuously, to suggest uncertainty in the science, whilst you consistently avoid to follow the information up with meaningful discussion on the real issues : whether the eggs you lay have any validity beyond being mendacious soundbites.
Andy, you are being disingenuous. You are simply reporting anything you can find which can be used to promote the fallacy. Even Steve Jones is roped in because he stated the fact that there was not a statistically significant change over 10 years. And of course his explanation is never reported.
Do you not understand the problem of revealing a 1 or 2 degree per century trend in 10 years of noise preventing detection of anything less than 4.5 degree per century?
Of course you can find reports of no statistically significant change over the last 10 years. But how honest is it if you ignore the well established science that it is impossible to detect the trend with any statistical confidence in that time period.
That is the worst sort if cherry picking of reports.
Here is a challenge gir you Andy. You refer to peer reviewed literature. Please provide a link to some of these papers where the 95% confidence range is reported so that we can make an honest and objective assessment. Any paper worth it’s salt will have that information.
Richard – please cite my declaration of Ken being a loser. Please also cite my declaration of me as a winner.
In discussion with Ken
Kenny, Kenny, Kenny – you lose the debate entirely when you call your opponent a childish denier…Anyhoo guys, it’s been luverly, but I’ve got a real job too. Catch you all later. Take care.
Regards “how the funding/tax thing influences the science.”:
Let’s say you are a Bsc Biolgist at Massey Univeristy. You have been offered a BSc(Hons) for which blah blah blah kospiracy fantasy follows
That’s how hundreds of scientists globally manipulate the research and screw you on taxes?
I kind of hope Mike Jowsey is your real name, you deserve to have this idiocy left forever on the web.
Okay – I’m sorry. I got caught up in the paradigm that there are winners and losers in this. Not so, Good call Richard – my bad. I still maintain however that if you have to call someone a “denier” you have already lost your [however otherwise reasonable] argument.
The scientific consensus on the temperature 1975-1998 is fine with you, heck, it’s generally accepted . By whom? we are left wondering, who generally accepts this with enough authority for Andy Scrase to run with it.
Yet the scientific consensus on warming for past century to date you dispute by cherry picking data.
Yet the scientific consensus on warming for past century to date you dispute by cherry picking data.
I am not cherry picking data for the current century. I am using the current century’s data. The conclusions that I draw are the same as the peer-reviewed literature and most climate scientists.
Whether it is a temporary hiatus and warming will resume remains to be seen. Presumably, if the lack of warming continues for another 5-10 years then the theory will have to be revisited, as the temperature records are deviating from the IPCC projections to the extent that there will have to be a sharp uptick in temps for the low end of the projections to be reached
I kind of hope Richard Christie is your real name too, mate. Otherwise we just can’t get along! Google me. Ya think I need to hide from something? You want my email, my google, my skype, my phone, my address? Just ask. I don’t know where you live, and I don’t care. It is the logic that matters. Nothing else. If I need to intimidate you into my belief, then I will put a wee red-white-black counter-clockwise symbol on my arm.
So, Andy, it appears you actually can’t produce links to the .”peer reviewed” literature you claimed.
Oh yes I can find plenty of peer-reviewed links Ken.
But why should I bother sharing them with you? You are not interested in my view. You are only interested in preserving your dogmatic view of the world.
“Science” to guys like you is like a bit of rice pudding that has been left in the fridge for 8 weeks
All you climate skeptics out there, eventually you will understand that climate alarmism is a faith. It does not matter how weak the underlying science is, or that Lovelock has become an apostate, the climate faithful ignore the criticisms and carry on undaunted like members of any other faith. So don’t waste your breath.
It is part of the reason why politicians do not talk much about anthropogenic climate change anymore, they must now know it is an unstructured quasi-religion. And discussing any religion is a no-win for them, so they don’t even bring it up.
Richie – I am very aquainted with the workings of academia. If your don;t get published, you die. To get published you must get funded. Funding comes from the Powers That Be. If you want to label that reality as a “konspiracy”…
Yep, it’s all a big conspiracy and you are the only one that can see through their lies.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is up to no good just to get their hands on funding.
Ooggity Boogity!
Kenny, Kenny, Kenny – you lose the debate entirely when you call your opponent a childish denier.
Yeah, but any denier could say that.
The trouble is that deniers do exist in real life.
Deniers are real.
HIV deniers are….um…deniers.
Creationists are deniers too.
Vaccine deniers are deniers..
They all operate the same way and use the same arguments.
The big bad “Powers that Be” wanting all that mysterious “funding” is standard shtick.
Behold:
“That HIV is the primary cause of AIDS is the strongly held consensus opinion of the scientific community, based upon over two decades of robust research. Deniers must therefore reject this consensus, either by denigrating the notion of scientific authority in general, or by arguing that the mainstream HIV community is intellectually compromised. It is therefore not surprising that much of the newer denial literature reflects a basic distrust of authority and of the institutions of science and medicine.”
Then there’s the science is a religion routine.
Poor Klem is very confused.
All you climate skeptics out there, eventually you will understand that climate alarmism is a faith. It does not matter how weak the underlying science is, or that Lovelock has become an apostate, the climate faithful ignore the criticisms and carry on undaunted like members of any other faith.
Faith blah, blah, apostate, blah, blah, faithful, blah, faith.
Occasionally other terms can be used such as High Priests, dogma, Inquisition, temple, creed etc.
Again, this is a standard thing that deniers do.
“There is classical science, the way it’s supposed to work, and then there’s religion. I regained my sanity when I realized that AIDS science was a religious discourse. The one thing I will go to my grave not understanding is why everyone was so quick to accept everything the government said as truth. Especially the central myth: the cause of AIDS is known.”
Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion
Deniers also paint themselves as skeptics working to break down a misguided and deeply rooted belief. They argue that when mainstream scientists speak out against the scientific “orthodoxy,” they are persecuted and dismissed.”
Poor Klem.
Reality is not his friend.
A global scientific conspiracy is stupid. It doesn’t work.
NASA really and truly is not lying to you.
Get a life.
Well, Andy, I check back and still there is no reference or link from you. You say instead;
“Oh yes I can find plenty of peer-reviewed links Ken. But why should I bother sharing them with you? You are not interested in my view. You are only interested in preserving your dogmatic view of the world.”
That is childish. (Sorry – its hard to think of any other way of describing your behavior).
I don’t give a stuff about your (or anyone else’s) view – unless you can back it up. It turns out that your claim about the last 10 years as supported by most climate scientists and peer reviewed literature is just bluster. Might I even say a lie.
Why do some scientists insist that Texas is warming when the data show a negligible increase? I don’t know. But I do know that a National Science Foundation program officer told me that applications for atmospheric science grants that do not include a global warming theme stand little chance of acceptance.
It’s just a recent anecdote to show that claims of bias in the science are plausible, even credible. There are plenty of other such stories – read the Climategate emails for more anecdotal evidence.
You say “NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is up to no good just to get their hands on funding.”
Consider the letter from 49 ex-NASA scientists, engineers and astronauts wherein they say:
“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
Or the open letter signed by a hundred or so America Physical Society members wherein they request:
As current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned petition the APS Council to commission an independent, objective study and assessment of the science relating to the question of anthropogenic global warming. The assessment should consider findings representing the full scope of available scientific sources. The assessment is to be used as a basis for a new Statement on Climate Change that reflects the current state of scientific knowledge and its uncertainties. This Petition is to be provided to the membership for comment prior to action by the Council.
@ Andy Whether it is a temporary hiatus and warming will resume remains to be seen. Presumably, if the lack of warming continues for another 5-10 years then the theory will have to be revisited, as the temperature records are deviating from the IPCC projections to the extent that there will have to be a sharp uptick in temps for the low end of the projections to be reached
You surprise me.
Given the ‘if’s and presumptions in this statement you invite the question as to why, at every opportunity you feel the need to bring up the temperature record from this cherry picked range? a range from which no conclusions as to its impact on long term trends can be drawn with high statistical confidence.
Perhaps, Richard, the motive is that these people can keep doing that. No matter what the long term trends show if they always refer to the last 10 years they can always claim there has been no statistically significant warming. Unless, of course, the trend actually goes outside the range +/-4.5 degree/century.
Ken – I haven’t followed Global Warming at all in the past 10 years, but from what I have picked up, I understand that our entire solar system is heating up- all planets. From their cores. That fact seems to be censored somehow, Google it. Once you come to terms with that- then you need to consider we now know of at least 5 ancient civilizations that were more technically advanced than we are today, but have all completely disappeared from historical record aside from anything build in stone (and built using math and technology we still do not understand). Once you break away from your indoctrinated World view (which applies to 98% of ‘University’ educated people) and accept those facts- you start to realize that our ‘civilization’ is also moving forward and will presumably follow the same path. I think one thing almost every Climate Change conspiracy theorist has in common- they all know nothing of the Rothschilds, the real richest people in the World and the way this World is actually run. They are like ignorant sheep, all sold on paying the World’s first Global tax and on fake science and news reports- the same as they all believe 9-11 was carried out by a Muslim man in a cave with a cell phone. Its a shame NZ’ers are all so indoctrination and sheepish. I heard most of them still think we actually won the RWC. Wake up NZ. Its communism and Global warming is happening to ALL of the planets in our Solar System. Its perfectly natural and its not going to change, no matter how much tax you pay to your slave masters. Seriously, get informed kids.
Its a shame good young Kiwis are wasting time on this Global warming rubbish. There are more important issues happening around us everyday. I urge anyone that still believes this Global warming rubbish/ con to watch this video….then do yourself a favor and use your mind to move your research forward. We all need ‘activists’ and the work they do- but its a shame to see so many of them distracted on false debates like Warming….start here peeps and just consider who much of anything you been told in the Media or at School/ Uni is indeed true. Please.
NZ and the World needs the energy of the ‘activists’ on this blog, but not for the Global Warming con. You need to learn that the same people will profit from your carbon tax as will profit from your ‘clean’ energy solutions. You simply cannot claim to have an informed opinion on ‘climate change’ (actually solar system change) until you have watched this movie in FULL. Then you will understand who is behind all the ‘science’ and media hype. You will understand the true meaning of everything the media sells us, and even that which they do not sell us. Seriously guys – get FULLY informed and then blog, to everyone’s advantage:
It’s just a recent anecdote to show that claims of bias in the science are plausible, even credible.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Consider the letter from 49 ex-NASA scientists….
Why?
Are you mental? Why should I give a toss about a list of 49 retirees…who at one time used to work for NASA when I can go to…..(wait for it, wait for it…) NASA?
Think about it.
NASA does research. They do work. They publish in the peer-reviewed literature. They are pioneers and world leaders in the field of climatology.
They employ actual specialists like, y’know, climatologists to find out about climatology.
Why do you go all giddy at a tiny list of 49 NASA retirees?
Where’s the logic?
You are scrabbling around for any excuse to ignore the science.
There is not world wide scientific conspiracy.
It’s physically impossible.
There’s no way to organise it or enforce discipline in the ranks or weed out the rebels when the next crop of young scientists enter the workforce.
NASA does not give the CSIRO their marching orders.
The Royal Society does not secretly control the USGS.
Think of the top five best scientific communities in the world that you personally like.
(Choose any field-physics, chemistry, geology etc)
Ok, you have them? Right, now all of them are on my side.
Don’t trust me on that. Google their respective official websites and read up on that for yourself.
OK, now go for twenty of the very best scientific communities on the planet. Make sure they are well stocked with active working scientists doing incredible stuff like launching satellites and sending off expeditions to the Arctic etc.
OK, you have them. Well, they are on my side too.
All of them. Make the list as big as you like.
The scientific consensus on climate change did not happen by magic.
It was created by the normal, boring old fashioned way.
Go ahead and read up on the history of it all.
The scientists of the world are not lying to you.
Focus on the work that has been done over the many decades.
There is no grand conspiracy and no, it’s not a power grab by the Illuminatii.
(facepalm)
“The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming. The Council’s vote came after it received a report from a committee of eminent scientists who reviewed the existing statement in response to a petition submitted by a group of APS members.
The petition had requested that APS remove and replace the Society’s current statement. The committee recommended that the Council reject the petition.” Link
Yep, that’s right.
The American Physical society is firmly in control of the global conspiracy.
The Jan. 27 op-ed “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” is inaccurate in its characterization of the Climate Change Statement of the American Physical Society (APS), the nation’s leading organization of physicists with more than 50,000 members.
The APS statement is unequivocal. It notes that “global warming is occurring.” And the commentary states that “while there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century.” The statement does not declare, as the authors of the op-ed suggest, that the human contribution to climate change is incontrovertible.
The APS has dealt with the climate-change issue openly and democratically, and it has given every APS member the opportunity to inform the process. In addition, an independent, unbiased panel examined the statement and consulted with leading climate experts as well as skeptics. Finally, the Council of the APS, comprised of the elected representatives of the society, overwhelmingly approved the statement and accompanying commentary. As it has for 112 years, the APS continues to stand for the utmost integrity in promoting and disseminating scientific research.
Robert L. Byer, Ph.D.
President
American Physical Society
Washington Link
You can almost here the black helicopters in the background hovering overhead as he typed the statement out.
Ooooo, spooky.
Consider the letter from 49 ex-NASA scientists…
NASA considered the letter and had a good giggle.
Science required work-not letters.
Oddly enough, they did not find a few retirees that used to work for NASA to speak on their behalf.
They went with the active working scientists that still work at NASA.
Amazing, eh?
“NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.
“Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public.
“If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse.”
Well, Andy, I check back and still there is no reference or link from you. You say instead;
[…]
I don’t give a stuff about your (or anyone else’s) view – unless you can back it up. It turns out that your claim about the last 10 years as supported by most climate scientists and peer reviewed literature is just bluster. Might I even say a lie.
Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with
observed temperature 1998–2008
Robert K. Kaufmanna,1, Heikki Kauppib, Michael L. Manna, and James H. Stockc
aDepartment of Geography and Environment, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue (Room 457),
Boston, MA 02215; bDepartment of Economics, University of Turku, FI-20014, Turku, Finland; and cDepartment of Economics,
Harvard University, 1805 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
Quote from the abstract
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising
greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global
surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find
that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase
in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings
(my emphasis)
So now that I have provided a PEER REVIEWED PAPER that backs up my claims, are you going to continue to call me a liar etc?
But just to refresh your memory – here’s what I asked:
“Please provide a link to some of these papers where the 95% confidence range is reported so that we can make an honest and objective assessment. Any paper worth it’s salt will have that information.”
Now neither the abstract or the initial part of the paper has any statistical analysis – they just take the superficial appearance of the data (and refer to the data on another source).
So at first glance I suspect your find does not actually correspond to my request. There doesnt appear to be any statistical support for the superficial claim.
But I’ll check tomorrow.
Meanwhile, perhaps you had better keep searching!
The statistical analysis is the key – without that any superficial claim is meaningless.
Oh I am sorry Ken, I’d better snap to it then.
Actually I was responding to my quote, and I am not interested in running around after your requests.
Since you use this statistical technique to negate the statements in this peer-reviewed paper perhaps you could also apply it to the rest of the 20th century warming
I’ll check back in the morning, otherwise I’ll just assume that you cherry-pick your time periods and statistical techniques when it suits you to support your political viewpoint.
After all, you have openly stated that you are not interested in other peoples views, including those expressed in peer-reviewed papers, that do not conform to your Soviet-Lysenkoist world view.
Get back in your tree, Andy. I have explained why your claims are meaningless.
But think of it this way – with the variability you have in a 10 year period the measured trend is not going to be significantly different from zero. But it is also not going to be significantly different to +2 degree per century either.
That is your fundamental problem. It’s a trick – but a dishonest one.
By the way, perhaps you should also read the paper – its not really about the so-called “hiatus” and it doesn’t exactly support the denier position.
As it happens, I agree that 10 years is a short period and there is a lot of variability. I never claimed that “global warming has stopped” etc, but that the “hiatus” is mentioned in peer reviewed literature.
You continue to use terms like “anti-science” and “denier’ when all I am doing is describing the shape of the data, smoothing out the high frequency noise which is what climate scientists are doing in these papers
You continue to use terms like “anti-science” and “denier’ when all I am doing is describing the shape…
Oh, is that all you are doing?
So you accept the conclusions of NASA and every single scientific community on the planet on the issue of climate change?
You don’t deny or “doubt” or “Just ask Questions” about them?
Go direct to the source and skip the middlemen.
Do not pass “GO”. Do not collect $200.
It’s all there in plain English. http://climate.nasa.gov/
Their conclusions are backed up by all the scientific communities on the planet. Check out their official websites for yourself.
NOAA, AAAS, NAS, The Royal Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, CSIRO, British Antarctic Survery, AGU, Royal Society, American Chemical Society, etc.
They are all good.
Look at them all. Every branch of the Earth Sciences is represented.
Climatology does not work in a vacuum.
Andy, I have read the paper you found. Interesting what it actually reveals about your “research” methodology.
First – this paper is in no way establishing a hiatus or lack of trend – it does no analysis of temperatures.
It’s purpose was to use a mathematical model to see if they could duplicate the actual temperatures over that 10-year period where an apparent flattening had “prompted some popular commentators to doubt the existing understanding of the relationship among radiative forcing, internal variability, and global surface temperature. This seeming disconnect may be one reason why the public is increasingly sceptical about anthropogenic climate change.”
Its purely a testing of a model.
Secondly – The authors do not conclude that the greenhouse gas anthropogenic forcing has stopped or gone into hiatus. Rather it suggests that other anthropogenic inputs, in particular sulphur inputs from expansion of Chinese coal use, have reduced the net anthropogenic effect. They also consider other natural factors.
No doubt one could find many papers where scientists have used mathematical models to evaluate possible causes of details in the temperature record. And no doubt there is yet to be much consensus on much of this work.
Thirdly – They refer to the likelihood of finding periods where variability prevents detection of any trend. They did not actually do so by testing the temperature record (I would have thought that would be required) but used data produced by model simulations. They say “Analysis of twentieth century simulation indicates that ten year periods with zero or negative temperature trends are likely (p<0.05). This relatively high probability is partially attributed to natural variability."
This is more or less what I have been trying to tell you (p<0.05 refers to the 95% confidence level).
Finally – Your research method. (a) Clearly your approach is to search for references which appear to say what you belief – warming trends not occurring (confirmation bias). The fact that the link was to the denier site Whats up with that does seem to suggest you kept your search within your ideological silo instead of doing a search of science journal.
(b) You didn’t read the paper, stopping as soon as you find your required words in the abstract. You don’t even appear to have read the entire abstract missing the last sentence: “we find that recent global temperature records are consistent
with the existing understanding of the relationship among
global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative
forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known
warming and cooling effects.”
So interesting exercise but you have still basically ignored my request.
I wasn’t claiming either that the greenhouse effect had stopped. I find the arguments rather tenuous however. First, I find it unlikely that aerosols magically appeared in the last 10 years to cancel the anthro forcing. Secondly, I can accept the natural variability argument, but doesn’t this suggest that the previous 30 years of warming also had natural variability?
I am not an advocate for the position the authors take. I suspect as modellers they feel some allegiance to their particular model. However, of course we must consider the role of sulphur inputs, etc, as they seem to have certainly had an influence in the past.
Natural variability is not new – how could it be. I suspect if one looked back over 10 year periods for the last 100 years the confidence limits would be similar and one could conclude that there was no statistically significant trend detectable in most if not all of those periods. After all even with the 100 years of NZ data the confidence limits are still +/- 0.3 degree/century.
10 years is just not long enough to find a significant trend of 1 or 2 degree/century.
I wasn’t claiming blah, blah, I find the arguments rather tenuous, blah, I find it unlikely blah, blah, I can accept the natural variability argument, but blah, blah?
Anyway, whatever.
Yeah, whatever.
Moron.
You have so much doubt and you have so many questions and this science stuff is so very hard. Oh woe!
(yawn)
I’m not going to give you as [Al Gore] did in that film my opinion about climate change because it is as worthless as his.
– Monckton.
“Everything I say I can and will , upon request, verify (…) in the peer-reviewed literature.”
-Monckton
Global scientific conspiracies do not work.
NASA is not lying to you.
potholer54 mirror – Global Climate Change – Debunking Lord Monckton 1
You just got your clock cleaned by Ken. You brought up a paper that you clearly didn’t honestly understand and Ken had to spell it out for you using a big crayon and simple words.
Your reaction?
“Uh…yeah, whatever.”
That’s what a moron would do.
You, Andy, are indeed a moron.
Andy, you need pull your brain out of your silly arse and think about it.
For forty years, NASA has studied the climate. They cover every single one of the Earth Sciences. They have had to justify every single penny to completely different political administrations over the years.
NASA’s work is excellent and rich in detail.
Their conclusions are supported and confirmed by other, totally independent scientific communities who also do the hard work that science demands.
You can’t handle that.
It’s you versus NASA.
You can’t bring yourself to accept the conclusions of NASA.
They have a website.
They put their conclusions out there for all to see.
Yet you have to dodge and go all coy.
That’s stupid. It makes you look like a genuine moron.
It’s stupid in the same way that not accepting NASA went to the moon is stupid.
NASA is not lying to you.
There is no global scientific conspiracy.
Duh!
Tell it to someone who cares, Andy. You’ve got nothing.
There is no big spooky-wooky global scientific conspiracy.
From his comments in past I suspect Andy believes the conspiracy is left-wing or Marxist rather than scientific, and that it is facilitated by The Guardian newspaper. Science is just a handicap he has to somehow work around.
Not just Marxist.
“Hard Left” Marxist!
(The super duper type)
They’ve taken over all of Europe, y’know!
2.72 Green is the new Red – Stop Enviro-Communism!
You might know them as environmentalists, enviro-communists, eco-Marxists, neo-Communists or eco-fanatics. They all claim they want to save the world from global warming but their true agenda is to contribute to create a world government lead by the UN or in other ways increase the transfer of resources (redistribute resources) from the developed Western world to the third world. They hope to accomplish this through the distribution of misinformation (propaganda) which they hope will lead to increased taxation of already excessively taxed Europeans and US citizens.
The neo-communist agenda uses politicised science to propagate the global warming scam in order to implement their true agenda; global Marxism. Marxism‘s ultimate goal is to redistribute wealth from successful nations to failed nations, instead of actually trying to fix these broken nations. Politicised science is being used by the cultural Marxist hegemony to manipulate the unsuspecting masses. They are using our trust and faith in science to spread lies and hysteria that will allow Marxists to implement socialist “solutions” to a problem that never actually existed.
Andy, I note that Bob D has now admitted the confidence limits in his graph were +/-4 degree per century and that it would be impossible to detect a trend of the reported level in 10 years. (He suggests 50 years would be required).
Really makes Treadgold look bad for claiming the graph “proved” that warming had “halted.”
Let’s take a trip down memory lane:
🙂
…………………………………………………………….
Cedric Katesby: Do you really believe that the IPCC is interested in “unsubstantiated propoganda”?
Is that how the scientific world operates?
Seriously?”
Andy Scrace: Yes, you got it! Hard left marxist driven statist IPCC.
(…Later…)
Cedric Katesby: How did you find out that the IPCC were all “Hard Left Marxists”?
That’s quite a bit of stunning detective work.
Amazing really.
What evidence do you have to support such a jaw-dropping claim?
How come nobody else (including NASA and the AGU and the USGS and the Royal Society etc) are mentioning this?
Could it be that they all have been taken over by “Hard Left Marxists” too?
All of them?
Really?
Do tell.
Give us all the details.
It sounds…fascinating.
Andy Scrace: As for “hard left”, well you only need to look a the EU and see how it is destroying the UK economy through its marxist totalitarian views and its obsession with climate change.
The lights will go out in about 5 years in theUK.,
Their energy policy has nowhere to go. All driven by IPCC myopia.
Yet later…
I have never suggested that there was a conspiracy theory.
My dear Andy Scrace, I believe you.
Of course you’re not suggesting a conspiracy theory.
Absolutely.
Sure. 🙂
You just think that the IPPC is secretly run by “Hard Left Marxists”.
Which (of course) you believe because…the whole of the European Union in the 21st century is run by “Hard Left Marxists”.
Why, absolutely everybody knows and understands this.
Eminently reasonable.
No conspiracy or paraniod delusions to see here, folks!
……………………………………………………………………
One of the best threads ever.
Comedy gold.
That exchange happened just over two years ago. So the UK only has three years left before the lights go out. Horrors!
(Go on Andy, yawn again. None of us mind in the slightest. It’s not like you are left with much else. Feel free.)
Well I would never claim that 10 years of data “prove” anything. As you point out, 17 years seems to be the accepted range to get a statistically meaningful dataset.
In any case, science doesn’t work by “proving”. You can disprove a theory, but not prove it, at least not according to the illustrious Karl Popper (since you seem to be interested in Philosophy of Science)
Well I would never claim that 10 years of data “prove” anything. As you point out, 17 years seems to be the accepted range to get a statistically meaningful dataset.
You flatly reject a zombie PRATT?
Wow.
I’ve never seen that before.
Whatever next? Are you going to start using multiple, independent, primary sources as opposed to relying on Internet gossip or the media for your science information?
I’m impressed.
8a. Climate Change – Phil Jones and the ‘no warming for 15 years’
It’s an interesting psychological phenomenon, and an unpleasant political one seeing they are needlessly badmouthing innocent and honest scientists.
Open Parachute 
What a lovely, civil conversation with clear respect from and for both sides. We simply do not see this kind of discussion in the public sphere here in the United States.
LikeLike
ABC in Austalia tonite is very informative about the need to act for renewable energy
Nick Minchin and Anna Rose,who is the most wonderful young woman have starred in a great doco
“I can change your mind about clImate”
And subsequent Q and A The Climate Debate
Check out ABC website
Hope you get to see in NZ
Chris KL
LikeLike
This is interesting, I find that when the climate alarmists attack the skeptics, their real motivating beliefs are political and religious. I wish this Oreskes person would write a book about that too.
cheers
LikeLike
Klem, That book will not be written by Naomi Oreskes as she doesn’t write fiction.
LikeLike
Given that Lovelock broadly agrees with the no warming for ten years theme, he’ll be dismissed as a denier or a senile old man.
LikeLike
Andy – Lovelock must have realised the cost of the whole scam. Apparently that would be all it takes to “turn[ed] him from a believer in climate science to a denier.” Nothing to do with eventually being convinced by the empirical data that the suppositions upon which CAGW and GCMs are built are fallacious, and admitting that there are major flaws in the theory of CAGW.
Interesting to note from that quote – one is either a “believer” or a “denier”, indicating the faith-based perception of CAGW.
LikeLike
Chris Kyle – here’s Jo Nova’s insight into how this ABC charade was configured:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/04/the-intellectual-vacuum-shows-how-weak-the-alarmists-are-in-trying-to-silence-skeptics/#comment-1052112
LikeLike
Well, well, it looks like the denier Internet silo has developed a leak.
Andy, you know we have thoroughly been over the 10 year no warming fallacy. Lovelock’s assertion crumbles under the simple request for him to put confidence levels on his claim. How can he make any claims about the global warming trend reported in the scientific literature of the order of a degree or so per century when 10 years data only allow detection of a trend outside the range +/- 4.5 degree per century. Anything from -4.5 to +4.5 is not significantly different to zero for such data.
This was thoroughly thrashed out on Richard’s blog.
As for the possibility of Lovelock being senile – unfortunately we are all prone to that with old age. And of course there are also other ailments we are prone to.
But let’s just deal with facts. He has no scientific basis for his claim as any simple statistical analysis of 10 years data will show.
LikeLike
@ Mike Jowsey | April 27, 2012 at 8:25 am |
Nova sounds akin to Delingpole complaining after the event that Sir Paul Nurse ambushed him with unfair questions, the poor man.
LikeLike
@ Richard Christie
Not sure why you link to a completely different story, Richard. Point is, Jo Nova says out of 4 hours taping, the ABC “showed not one single point I made, not one answer to Anna Roses questions.” That’s a wee bit different from being ambushed by unfair questions.
LikeLike
Climate deniers: Making the 9/11 Troofers look smart by comparison.
Andy, you know we have thoroughly been over the 10 year no warming fallacy.
PRATTs.
They never die. Never.
1998 Revisited
LikeLike
I have added a couple of links to the post – one to the documentary from which the clip was take (“I Can Change Your Mind About..Climate”) and the other the the ABC Q&A debate that occurred after the documentary was screened.
The comment above from Chris Kyle Link refers to these.
LikeLike
The hiatus or slowing in warming over the last 10 to 15 years is mentioned in the peer reviewed literature, so it is hardly a PRATT
LikeLike
“Science denial is a diversion from the real problems”
A diversion, re-heally….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2134769/Is-global-warming-just-hot-air-World-temperatures-risen-just-0-29C-decades.html
LikeLike
Wow, Mike Jowsey gets his science from the Daily Mail.
Is that stupid or is that stupid?
LikeLike
I think the Daily Mail article was about public policy rather than science.
LikeLike
Andy, even Steve Jones says there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 10 years – that’s just a scientific fact which is not at all surprising to him or anyone who understands the science.
With the large variation in temperatures it is impossible to pick up a trend of the order reported in the scientific literature in such a short time period.
To just repeat that no statistically significant trend has been observed is dishonest. It’s confirmation bias. Because you ignore the fact that no detection of that trend is possible over that short time period.
You of course have a political motive in repeating this fallacy. It’s a common fallacy used by denies.
But you should know better than repeat it here as it has all been explained to you, with examples, using short words, repeatedly and slowly, on Richard’s blog. Even he now suggests he was making that claim just to “have a bit of fun.”
Yeah, right.
LikeLike
Did I suggest it was science? You seem to miss my point again Richard.
Here’s the thing. You guys fervently believe the earth is headed for hell in a handbasket unless we act with forced measures right now. Fair enough – I respect your belief system. I respect your freedom to voice those and to raise red flags where appropriate. However, please recognise that the policies your movement advocates have real repercussions to ordinary hard-working real-life parents and grand-parents. The heading of this article is that those who raise questions about whether your flag is a false flag or not are diverting attention away from the real issues. My point is, by highlighting an article such as this, (albeit in the popular press), these are the real issues. If the government of NZ was to ban log fires, for example, because it was determined that the carbon footprint of such devices adversely impacted our Kyoto obligations, my family would be mostly cold most of the winter, my electricity bills would double and my family’s health would be a constant battle. This is real. No distraction. I am not a scientist Richard. I go by logic and facts. If you want to show me your facts about the proven mechanisms (proven by empirical observations, not models) by which a doubling of CO2 will take this planet to hell in a handbasket, then have at it. Meanwhile, please recognise that I am concerned for the hardships your movement is imposing upon the general population, myself included, while derogatorily labeling anyone with such concerns a “Denier”, for God’s sake!
LikeLike
I watched the Q&A discussion and though it was worthwhile. All viewpoints are represented in the panel and audience and I thought some important ideas got through.
Really liked that they actually checked some of the claims made by the deniers with an actual climate scientist who was able to correct their misleading information.
LikeLike
Mike, you are not warranted to refer to people here as a movement or to attribute the claims you make to them. Deal with he issues.
The fact is that the science is pretty well understood. The practical steps required to accomadate the problems are not immediately obvious. There a matter for us all to work out. Scientists have no special expertise in these political issues. We must all contribute.
It does no good to avoid those practical, political, and economic issues by telling lies about the science. Or by slandering the honest experts.
To do so is like a silly teenager who wishes to smoke and not face up to possible health consequence down the line. To in fact claim that the scientists who identified the health problems of smoking are telling lies.
Very childish.
LikeLike
Wow, Mike Jowsey gets his science from the Daily Mail.
Is that stupid or is that stupid?
Hey, go easy on the deniers. Where would they be without their newspapers and no-name blogs?
Here’s the thing. You medical scientist types fervently believe that I will die from lung cancer unless I have an operation right now. Fair enough – I respect your belief system. I respect your freedom to voice those and to raise red flags where appropriate. However, please recognise that the policies your health service advocates have real repercussions to ordinary hard-working real-life parents and grand-parents. Those who raise questions about whether your belief that smoking causes cancer is a false flag or not are diverting attention away from the real issues. My point is, by highlighting an article such as this, (albeit in the popular press), these are the real issues. If the government of NZ was to recommend that I undergo surgery for lung cancer for example, because it was determined that I had cancer that was malignant, my family would be very stressed by such terrible news for most of the winter, my medical bills would double and my personal health would be a constant battle. This is real. No distraction. I am not a doctor Richard. I go by logic and facts. If you want to show me your facts about the proven mechanisms (proven by empirical observations, not models) by which smoking cigarettes will actually cause me to have lung cancer, then have at it. Meanwhile, please recognise that I am concerned for the hardships your national health service is imposing upon the general population, myself included, while derogatorily labeling anyone with such concerns a “Denier”, for God’s sake!”
tobacco_papers
LikeLike
If you read Mike’s comment with any sense of neutrality – its is clear he is requesting a rational debate around real science and facts. What could be wrong with that? I also note someone has scolded him on referring to ‘you guys’ as being ‘a group/ movement’, whilst the very title of your own article is in fact labeling him as being part of ‘a group’. Another poster was obviously upset by Mike’s opinions and decided to attack him personally. This is one way traffic guys- why don’t you try and actually address his questions/ concerns to we can in fact have real debate? Is that not what this website is for? I also note Mike is the only poster who bothered to check his spelling and grammar- more thought out perhaps?
LikeLike
The fact is that the science is pretty well understood
Not correct Ken.
Even given the basic greenhouse theory, there is huge uncertainty around the feedbacks.
LikeLike
If you read Mike’s comment with any sense of neutrality – its is clear he is requesting a rational debate around real science and facts.
Don’t be daft.
Are you part of his tag team?
The science is clear,to those with any sense of neutrality .
LikeLike
Wait for it, Andy is going to bring up modeling or wind farms or elderly dying of cold for want of a space heater.
LikeLike
No I wouldn’t bother with that. I realise that none of the warmist creed gives a stuff about poor or elderly people.
LikeLike
aww, c’mon, you know you want to.
LikeLike
@Ken: “Mike, you are not warranted to refer to people here as a movement or to attribute the claims you make to them. Deal with he [sic] issues.”
Oh – ok Ken – so you are ‘warranted’ to call me a denier, but I am not ‘warranted’ to call your cause a movement. Well, my apologies, I did not immediately recognise the hypocrisy. My bad. Meanwhile, all your ad-homs aside, allow me to do a point-by-point, seeing as you ‘unloaded’:
The
factopinion is that the science is ‘understood’. CORRECT me if I’m wrong. (Sorry about the caps-lok). THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED BUD.The practical steps… blah blah blah.. How about your article title dude – “Science denial is a diversion from the real problems”. And yet you now say the steps [to mitigate the real problems] are not immediately obvious. OH YES THEY ARE! (Caps-lok- my bad). We, the General Populace see and recognise your [Final] Solution, and have a few wee qualms about it.
“There [sic] a matter for us to all work out.” Well, I agree fully. Let’s work it out, Kenny. Because the brown matter is eventually gonna hit the rotating device when your movement fails to deliver the promise of hell in a handbasket. (Which is kinda happening already – no hell so far.)
Scientists have no special expertise in these political issues. Woah, big fella. You would like us to think that, wouldn’t you? The fact is, scientists are joined at the hip to funding. Current funding comes from government and/or corporate agendas. You think that the scientists switch off their political radar because they have some ethics about which side of the bread the butter is on? Please! I would like to meet just ONE.
Prove me wrong. Otherwise I believe I am ‘warranted’ to call it a movement.
Finally, “We must all contribute.” Riiiight, Kenny – all who are on the same page must contribute. Anybody else is a denier, who cannot possibly contribute because they are mentally deficient and in need of treatment. Open your parachute, Kenny. Maybe we are all on the same side mate. Scary, huh – there is only one third rock from this sun, so we had better figure out what is right rather than who is right, pretty damn soon.
LikeLike
[Since Mike’s doing the [sic] thing.
my bad
Bad what? bad grammar?]
<i?The fact is, scientists are joined at the hip to funding.
Sooner or later it’s always the conspiracy theory.
Every time.
Prove me wrong.
Lol
LikeLike
Nice, Richie. Real class response there.
LikeLike
Funny how good old fashioned self-interest, groupthink and confirmation bias gets conflated into a conspiracy theory.
LikeLike
Cohen, if Mike is asking for a “rational debate around real science and facts” then why doesn’t he join in? I have repeated again and again the statistical fallacy of their claims on what the last 10 years data show. Neither Mike, Andy or any of their mates will face up to that. They refuse to accept that science because it conflicts with their emotional or political agenda.
You say-“the very title of your own article is in fact labeling him as being part of ‘a group’. ” Bloody hell, what part of “Science denial is a diversion from the real problems” even mentions Mike.! You do sound like you are blinded by your own agenda.
But let’s take you up on your claimed desire to “have real debate.” What is your response to the 10 years data fallacy I have been discussing? Do you accept the science I have presented? If not, what are your objections to that science? Show me where you think I am wrong.
If you can’t surely the solution is obvious.
LikeLike
The fact is, scientists are joined at the hip to funding. Current funding comes from government and/or corporate agendas. You think that the scientists switch off their political radar because they have some ethics about which side of the bread the butter is on? Please! I would like to meet just ONE.
Mike is a konspiracy kook.
Scientists are out for his tax dollar.
LikeLike
Kenny, mate. You miss the point. You nitpik on some other point: ” (Which is kinda happening already – no hell so far.)” No hell so far Ken. And your movement wants more tax from me for WHAT?
LikeLike
OK Andy, I accept you don’t understand the science. Again and again I have had to show you and your mates the fallacy of using 10 years data and you can’t fault my science. You just rely in quoting Lovelock, etc. Or falling back on a conspiracy theory. if you understood you would engage with the science. You don’t.
Of course there are huge areas we need more data and understanding. That is the real nature of scientific knowledge. It must be provisional. But grown ups are used to dealing with that and making sensible decisions on the basis of what we know.
It is childish to pretend we don’t know what we do and to shoot the messenger. It is just not honest to attack honest scientists the way the denier groups do.
LikeLike
Richie – I am very aquainted with the workings of academia. If your don;t get published, you die. To get published you must get funded. Funding comes from the Powers That Be. If you want to label that reality as a “konspiracy”, then go get yourself a PhD and prove me wrong.
LikeLike
Kenny, Kenny, Kenny – you lose the debate entirely when you call your opponent a childish denier. Just address my post. Hell, you could get bulk traffic if you handled it right. Maybe even a Greenpeace sponsorship?
Anyhoo guys, it’s been luverly, but I’ve got a real job too. Catch you all later. Take care.
BTW, isn’t it great to live in New Zealand?
LikeLike
No Mike I don’t want any tax from you. I want a bit of honesty. If you are going to question the science then do so honestly. Face up to what scientists are saying and if you think they are honestly wrong show them where. Don’t divert by talking about tax.
If you think I am wrong about the 10 year fallacy then show me. Your refusal to engage will just confirm my suspicions.
But a real honest engagement will be very welcome.
LikeLike
If your don;t get published, you die. To get published you must get funded. Funding comes from the Powers That Be.
Keep going Mike, don’t stop .
Join the dots for us.
LikeLike
OK Mike, you have a “real job to do.” (what is it by the way?).
And for that you get paid. That’s the nature of a job – you get paid for results that your employer wants.
Now scientists are in the same boat. They get paid for discovering and understanding things. Society wants us to produce these results. They have paid for our training so we can do that. Climate scientists have been paid to do a job – not to invent a story (theologians would be employed if that’s what society wanted). But to find out what the facts are so that we can take action if anything is indicated.
It’s sensible for scientists to employ experts and be prepared to face up to the facts they reveal. (Just imagine if New Zealanders had refused to accept the discovery of Co deficiency in the Central North Island just because the scientists were funded to find the cause of animal problems!).
It is childish to reject the findings of experts out of hand. And even more childish to slander them by pretending they have made up a story because they are paid.
Are we to take from that you are a fraud – you don’t really do your job. And the proof is you get paid for it?
Bloody hell. That is childish.
LikeLike
Gee I missed this
And your movement wants more tax from me for WHAT?
Right on cue too!
Priceless!
LikeLike
Kenny, Kenny, Kenny – you lose the debate entirely when you call your opponent a childish denier.
LikeLike
Mike, I think you should try rereading what I have written. I do not call anyone childish. But I do say that some arguments are so bad they must be considered childish.
Perhaps you yourself are actually aware of how silly the arguments you use are. And therefore take my judgement as a personal attack rather than a simple description of the quality of the argument. So you take it to heart.
Simple solution. Stop your own personal attacks on honest scientists (they are defamatory) and actually engage with the science if you do think they are wrong.
If you aren’t capable of doing that my suggestion is to accept what the experts are telling us and get on with debating possible solutions. That problem itself is big enough for us without charging at windmills.
LikeLike
Ken, since you are such a fan of “honest scientists”, you should justify Jim Salinger’s attempts to get Chris de Freitas sacked from his job at Auckland University (well documented in the climategate 2 emails).
These actions were of course fully endorsed by all your “honest scientists”.
LikeLike
Please cite one personal attack on honest scientists that I have made. May I remind you, Ken, that I believe that we ALL live on this little third rock and I want to know why you want extra taxation from me.
LikeLike
Well Mike, since you’ve so roundly defeated Ken in argument by cleverly declaring him to be the loser you’ll have no objection carrying on the discussion with Cedric and me.
Tell us how the funding/tax thing influences the science.
You know you need to.
LikeLike
Andy – another diversion away from the science. You keep claiming that there has been no warming for 10 years. You refuse to respond to the statistical analysis I have presented and seem to think referring to Lovelock or whoever is sufficient.
It isn’t.
Diverting to other issues is just a Gish Gallop. If you can’t fault my analysis be a man and accept it.
LikeLike
Mike you are not making any sense.
How I yearn for the old days when I could have a spirited debate with other scientists. Sure it could get personal and silly. But we always came back to the real issues. To reality. To what the facts were telling us.
Reality kept us honest.
And that’s what we were paid for.
Don’t you realize it’s no good complaining to me about the tax you pay? You seem to have a real obsession about it.
LikeLike
You keep claiming that there has been no warming for 10 years.
I am not claiming anything. I am merely reporting that there has been a hiatus or slowing in warming for 10 years which is fully supported by the peer reviewed literature and most climate scientists
Your continued denial of this is most bizarre.
LikeLike
It was warmer at 12 pm today than it was at 10am.
We must be going into summer.
LikeLike
It’s been raining here all week. There is a drought and a hosepipe ban
LikeLike
Richard – you should now leave the conversation mate. Have another Woody and check the conversation out in the morning. “Weather does not equal climate” my planet-loving friend. (P.S. I love the planet too- see you when it rotates another 145.78 degrees. We are all on the same planet.).
LikeLike
Your continued denial of this is most bizarre.
Actually Andy, I’ll not argue with your observation, only with the way you use it.
It’s part of your modus operandi, here and on other sites, to drop ambiguous information into discussions. You are fully aware that scientifically or mathematically challenged readers won’t understand the implications of the material under discussion.
“the model algorithms are unsolvable resulting in approximations” , “there has been a hiatus in the warming trend since 1998” etc etc.
You do this on purpose and continuously, to suggest uncertainty in the science, whilst you consistently avoid to follow the information up with meaningful discussion on the real issues : whether the eggs you lay have any validity beyond being mendacious soundbites.
LikeLike
Andy, you are being disingenuous. You are simply reporting anything you can find which can be used to promote the fallacy. Even Steve Jones is roped in because he stated the fact that there was not a statistically significant change over 10 years. And of course his explanation is never reported.
Do you not understand the problem of revealing a 1 or 2 degree per century trend in 10 years of noise preventing detection of anything less than 4.5 degree per century?
Of course you can find reports of no statistically significant change over the last 10 years. But how honest is it if you ignore the well established science that it is impossible to detect the trend with any statistical confidence in that time period.
That is the worst sort if cherry picking of reports.
Here is a challenge gir you Andy. You refer to peer reviewed literature. Please provide a link to some of these papers where the 95% confidence range is reported so that we can make an honest and objective assessment. Any paper worth it’s salt will have that information.
Can you do that?
LikeLike
Richard – you should now leave the conversation mate.
Mike, do you know your own mind?
Half an hour ago you were declaring yourself the winner, leaving the discussion and running away, claiming you had to do some work.
Tell us how the funding/tax thing influences the science.
LikeLike
Maybe Ken can use his analysis on the 30 years of the 20th Century when we did actually have some warming.
LikeLike
sorry, I meant the period 1975-1998 of course, the generally accepted period when there was some warming
LikeLike
“generally accepted”, good enough for Andy?
The comedy writes itself
LikeLike
So, Andy, it appears you actually can’t produce links to the .”peer reviewed” literature you claimed.
Oh well, it’s what I expected.
But I am off to bed. I’ll check in tomorrow to see what you have found.
LikeLike
I am struggling to understand your sense of “humour” Richard.
The period of warming that occurred in the late 20th Century was between 1975 and 1998.
Is this too hard?
LikeLike
Richard – please cite my declaration of Ken being a loser. Please also cite my declaration of me as a winner.
Regards “how the funding/tax thing influences the science.”:
Let’s say you are a Bsc Biolgist at Massey Univeristy. You have been offered a BSc(Hons) for which
it will take an extra year to complete a dissertation. Said dissertation of 12000 words is to be overseen by a
Professor. Or two, maybe. Just to ensure proper checks are in place. If you are not too far off-script and have good
science, you get your BSc(Hons).
Next you do a Masters. Here you are going to present a thesis that is scientifically correctand not going to
ruffle any feathers. I have a suspicion (from experience) that this latter is most important to the University. I’m
sure there are exceptions. However, I have personally witnessed a case where a Masters undergrad was supervised by no
less than four (rather than the usual one) professors because their particular scholarship had specific [imo-
political] constraints.
So, you get through that gorse hedge with your Masters and realise that the watershed is this – there are some games at
play over and above your academic standing. You maybe have to decide between “Play the game for a while till I get
tenure, or quit now and get a real job.” Some principaled AND hard-working AND passionate people get thru that gorse
hedge. I know only a few.
But MOST shift their feet a couple of inches. It becomes “What do I need to tell them?” rather than “What is
empirical, transparently reproducable and built on non-falsified science?
Then you get wooed to do a PhD. The university politics are amazing. Then, the country politics are amazing. You need
to get published. Don’t talk about things that might upset your boss or the main stream press. In fact, if you can
research some aspect of science in line with the “politically correct” view, then you have no problem. A lot of
hard-digging research to support the consensus agenda, but no real problem. You get your PhD.
So Now, Doctor-whazzizname is Concerned with doing some interesting science without upsetting the University- if he can
attract extra funding for the University through published papers (pal reviewed) and conference-speaking, et cetera,
then all good for him. You call that conspiracy? No, mate – just observation. Take government and corporate funding
out of universities and the reputation of science may be restored. Meanwhile the hoi-palloy shout, “why do you want me
to pay more tax?”
Do not discount the cry of the tax-payers.
LikeLike
Richard – please cite my declaration of Ken being a loser. Please also cite my declaration of me as a winner.
In discussion with Ken
Kenny, Kenny, Kenny – you lose the debate entirely when you call your opponent a childish denier…Anyhoo guys, it’s been luverly, but I’ve got a real job too. Catch you all later. Take care.
Regards “how the funding/tax thing influences the science.”:
Let’s say you are a Bsc Biolgist at Massey Univeristy. You have been offered a BSc(Hons) for which blah blah blah kospiracy fantasy follows
That’s how hundreds of scientists globally manipulate the research and screw you on taxes?
I kind of hope Mike Jowsey is your real name, you deserve to have this idiocy left forever on the web.
LikeLike
Okay – I’m sorry. I got caught up in the paradigm that there are winners and losers in this. Not so, Good call Richard – my bad. I still maintain however that if you have to call someone a “denier” you have already lost your [however otherwise reasonable] argument.
LikeLike
Sure Andy, let me explain the irony for you.
The scientific consensus on the temperature 1975-1998 is fine with you, heck, it’s generally accepted . By whom? we are left wondering, who generally accepts this with enough authority for Andy Scrase to run with it.
Yet the scientific consensus on warming for past century to date you dispute by cherry picking data.
LikeLike
That’s how hundreds of scientists globally manipulate the research and screw you on taxes?
..uh huh
LikeLike
Yet the scientific consensus on warming for past century to date you dispute by cherry picking data.
I am not cherry picking data for the current century. I am using the current century’s data. The conclusions that I draw are the same as the peer-reviewed literature and most climate scientists.
Whether it is a temporary hiatus and warming will resume remains to be seen. Presumably, if the lack of warming continues for another 5-10 years then the theory will have to be revisited, as the temperature records are deviating from the IPCC projections to the extent that there will have to be a sharp uptick in temps for the low end of the projections to be reached
LikeLike
I kind of hope Richard Christie is your real name too, mate. Otherwise we just can’t get along! Google me. Ya think I need to hide from something? You want my email, my google, my skype, my phone, my address? Just ask. I don’t know where you live, and I don’t care. It is the logic that matters. Nothing else. If I need to intimidate you into my belief, then I will put a wee red-white-black counter-clockwise symbol on my arm.
LikeLike
Ken | April 27, 2012 at 11:50 pm |
So, Andy, it appears you actually can’t produce links to the .”peer reviewed” literature you claimed.
Oh yes I can find plenty of peer-reviewed links Ken.
But why should I bother sharing them with you? You are not interested in my view. You are only interested in preserving your dogmatic view of the world.
“Science” to guys like you is like a bit of rice pudding that has been left in the fridge for 8 weeks
LikeLike
All you climate skeptics out there, eventually you will understand that climate alarmism is a faith. It does not matter how weak the underlying science is, or that Lovelock has become an apostate, the climate faithful ignore the criticisms and carry on undaunted like members of any other faith. So don’t waste your breath.
It is part of the reason why politicians do not talk much about anthropogenic climate change anymore, they must now know it is an unstructured quasi-religion. And discussing any religion is a no-win for them, so they don’t even bring it up.
Just sayin’
cheers
LikeLike
Richie – I am very aquainted with the workings of academia. If your don;t get published, you die. To get published you must get funded. Funding comes from the Powers That Be. If you want to label that reality as a “konspiracy”…
Yep, it’s all a big conspiracy and you are the only one that can see through their lies.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is up to no good just to get their hands on funding.
Ooggity Boogity!
Kenny, Kenny, Kenny – you lose the debate entirely when you call your opponent a childish denier.
Yeah, but any denier could say that.
The trouble is that deniers do exist in real life.
Deniers are real.
HIV deniers are….um…deniers.
Creationists are deniers too.
Vaccine deniers are deniers..
They all operate the same way and use the same arguments.
The big bad “Powers that Be” wanting all that mysterious “funding” is standard shtick.
Behold:
“That HIV is the primary cause of AIDS is the strongly held consensus opinion of the scientific community, based upon over two decades of robust research. Deniers must therefore reject this consensus, either by denigrating the notion of scientific authority in general, or by arguing that the mainstream HIV community is intellectually compromised. It is therefore not surprising that much of the newer denial literature reflects a basic distrust of authority and of the institutions of science and medicine.”
Then there’s the science is a religion routine.
Poor Klem is very confused.
All you climate skeptics out there, eventually you will understand that climate alarmism is a faith. It does not matter how weak the underlying science is, or that Lovelock has become an apostate, the climate faithful ignore the criticisms and carry on undaunted like members of any other faith.
Faith blah, blah, apostate, blah, blah, faithful, blah, faith.
Occasionally other terms can be used such as High Priests, dogma, Inquisition, temple, creed etc.
Again, this is a standard thing that deniers do.
“Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma . As one HIV denier quoted in Maggiore’s book remarked,
“There is classical science, the way it’s supposed to work, and then there’s religion. I regained my sanity when I realized that AIDS science was a religious discourse. The one thing I will go to my grave not understanding is why everyone was so quick to accept everything the government said as truth. Especially the central myth: the cause of AIDS is known.”
Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion
Deniers also paint themselves as skeptics working to break down a misguided and deeply rooted belief. They argue that when mainstream scientists speak out against the scientific “orthodoxy,” they are persecuted and dismissed.”
Poor Klem.
Reality is not his friend.
A global scientific conspiracy is stupid. It doesn’t work.
NASA really and truly is not lying to you.
Get a life.
LikeLike
Well, Andy, I check back and still there is no reference or link from you. You say instead;
“Oh yes I can find plenty of peer-reviewed links Ken. But why should I bother sharing them with you? You are not interested in my view. You are only interested in preserving your dogmatic view of the world.”
That is childish. (Sorry – its hard to think of any other way of describing your behavior).
I don’t give a stuff about your (or anyone else’s) view – unless you can back it up. It turns out that your claim about the last 10 years as supported by most climate scientists and peer reviewed literature is just bluster. Might I even say a lie.
A self defeating lie I might add.
LikeLike
@ Cedric:
(emphasis mine)
http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/article/Research-shows-Texas-is-not-warming-3498409.php#ixzz1se4V0iO7
It’s just a recent anecdote to show that claims of bias in the science are plausible, even credible. There are plenty of other such stories – read the Climategate emails for more anecdotal evidence.
You say “NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is up to no good just to get their hands on funding.”
Consider the letter from 49 ex-NASA scientists, engineers and astronauts wherein they say:
Or the open letter signed by a hundred or so America Physical Society members wherein they request:
LikeLike
(link to the APS open letter: http://climatephysics.org/?page_id=211)
LikeLike
What? no daily Mail quote?
LikeLike
@ Andy
Whether it is a temporary hiatus and warming will resume remains to be seen. Presumably, if the lack of warming continues for another 5-10 years then the theory will have to be revisited, as the temperature records are deviating from the IPCC projections to the extent that there will have to be a sharp uptick in temps for the low end of the projections to be reached
You surprise me.
Given the ‘if’s and presumptions in this statement you invite the question as to why, at every opportunity you feel the need to bring up the temperature record from this cherry picked range? a range from which no conclusions as to its impact on long term trends can be drawn with high statistical confidence.
Why do you do that Andy?
LikeLike
Perhaps, Richard, the motive is that these people can keep doing that. No matter what the long term trends show if they always refer to the last 10 years they can always claim there has been no statistically significant warming. Unless, of course, the trend actually goes outside the range +/-4.5 degree/century.
They think they have it made.
Does the word “trick” come to mind?
LikeLike
Ken – I haven’t followed Global Warming at all in the past 10 years, but from what I have picked up, I understand that our entire solar system is heating up- all planets. From their cores. That fact seems to be censored somehow, Google it. Once you come to terms with that- then you need to consider we now know of at least 5 ancient civilizations that were more technically advanced than we are today, but have all completely disappeared from historical record aside from anything build in stone (and built using math and technology we still do not understand). Once you break away from your indoctrinated World view (which applies to 98% of ‘University’ educated people) and accept those facts- you start to realize that our ‘civilization’ is also moving forward and will presumably follow the same path. I think one thing almost every Climate Change conspiracy theorist has in common- they all know nothing of the Rothschilds, the real richest people in the World and the way this World is actually run. They are like ignorant sheep, all sold on paying the World’s first Global tax and on fake science and news reports- the same as they all believe 9-11 was carried out by a Muslim man in a cave with a cell phone. Its a shame NZ’ers are all so indoctrination and sheepish. I heard most of them still think we actually won the RWC. Wake up NZ. Its communism and Global warming is happening to ALL of the planets in our Solar System. Its perfectly natural and its not going to change, no matter how much tax you pay to your slave masters. Seriously, get informed kids.
LikeLike
Its a shame good young Kiwis are wasting time on this Global warming rubbish. There are more important issues happening around us everyday. I urge anyone that still believes this Global warming rubbish/ con to watch this video….then do yourself a favor and use your mind to move your research forward. We all need ‘activists’ and the work they do- but its a shame to see so many of them distracted on false debates like Warming….start here peeps and just consider who much of anything you been told in the Media or at School/ Uni is indeed true. Please.
Baaaaaa I’m out 🙂
LikeLike
NZ and the World needs the energy of the ‘activists’ on this blog, but not for the Global Warming con. You need to learn that the same people will profit from your carbon tax as will profit from your ‘clean’ energy solutions. You simply cannot claim to have an informed opinion on ‘climate change’ (actually solar system change) until you have watched this movie in FULL. Then you will understand who is behind all the ‘science’ and media hype. You will understand the true meaning of everything the media sells us, and even that which they do not sell us. Seriously guys – get FULLY informed and then blog, to everyone’s advantage:
LikeLike
This one maybe better to get you started. Its a Global Tax guys, that is all. The earth goes in cycles, as does our solar system.
LikeLike
It’s just a recent anecdote to show that claims of bias in the science are plausible, even credible.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Consider the letter from 49 ex-NASA scientists….
Why?
Are you mental? Why should I give a toss about a list of 49 retirees…who at one time used to work for NASA when I can go to…..(wait for it, wait for it…) NASA?
Think about it.
NASA does research. They do work. They publish in the peer-reviewed literature. They are pioneers and world leaders in the field of climatology.
They employ actual specialists like, y’know, climatologists to find out about climatology.
Why do you go all giddy at a tiny list of 49 NASA retirees?
Where’s the logic?
You are scrabbling around for any excuse to ignore the science.
There is not world wide scientific conspiracy.
It’s physically impossible.
There’s no way to organise it or enforce discipline in the ranks or weed out the rebels when the next crop of young scientists enter the workforce.
NASA does not give the CSIRO their marching orders.
The Royal Society does not secretly control the USGS.
Think of the top five best scientific communities in the world that you personally like.
(Choose any field-physics, chemistry, geology etc)
Ok, you have them? Right, now all of them are on my side.
Don’t trust me on that. Google their respective official websites and read up on that for yourself.
OK, now go for twenty of the very best scientific communities on the planet. Make sure they are well stocked with active working scientists doing incredible stuff like launching satellites and sending off expeditions to the Arctic etc.
OK, you have them. Well, they are on my side too.
All of them. Make the list as big as you like.
The scientific consensus on climate change did not happen by magic.
It was created by the normal, boring old fashioned way.
Go ahead and read up on the history of it all.
The scientists of the world are not lying to you.
Focus on the work that has been done over the many decades.
There is no grand conspiracy and no, it’s not a power grab by the Illuminatii.
(facepalm)
Climate Science 1956: A Blast from the Past
LikeLike
“The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming. The Council’s vote came after it received a report from a committee of eminent scientists who reviewed the existing statement in response to a petition submitted by a group of APS members.
The petition had requested that APS remove and replace the Society’s current statement. The committee recommended that the Council reject the petition.”
Link
Yep, that’s right.
The American Physical society is firmly in control of the global conspiracy.
The Jan. 27 op-ed “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” is inaccurate in its characterization of the Climate Change Statement of the American Physical Society (APS), the nation’s leading organization of physicists with more than 50,000 members.
The APS statement is unequivocal. It notes that “global warming is occurring.” And the commentary states that “while there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century.” The statement does not declare, as the authors of the op-ed suggest, that the human contribution to climate change is incontrovertible.
The APS has dealt with the climate-change issue openly and democratically, and it has given every APS member the opportunity to inform the process. In addition, an independent, unbiased panel examined the statement and consulted with leading climate experts as well as skeptics. Finally, the Council of the APS, comprised of the elected representatives of the society, overwhelmingly approved the statement and accompanying commentary. As it has for 112 years, the APS continues to stand for the utmost integrity in promoting and disseminating scientific research.
Robert L. Byer, Ph.D.
President
American Physical Society
Washington
Link
You can almost here the black helicopters in the background hovering overhead as he typed the statement out.
Ooooo, spooky.
Consider the letter from 49 ex-NASA scientists…
NASA considered the letter and had a good giggle.
Science required work-not letters.
Oddly enough, they did not find a few retirees that used to work for NASA to speak on their behalf.
They went with the active working scientists that still work at NASA.
Amazing, eh?
“NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.
“Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public.
“If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse.”
Link
You are being led by the nose.
LikeLike
Pingback: THE CLIMATE AI’NT WARMING? « DUCKPOND
Ken | April 28, 2012 at 10:39 am |
Well, Andy, I check back and still there is no reference or link from you. You say instead;
[…]
I don’t give a stuff about your (or anyone else’s) view – unless you can back it up. It turns out that your claim about the last 10 years as supported by most climate scientists and peer reviewed literature is just bluster. Might I even say a lie.
A self defeating lie I might add.
Well, here is one for you Ken.
link
Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with
observed temperature 1998–2008
Robert K. Kaufmanna,1, Heikki Kauppib, Michael L. Manna, and James H. Stockc
aDepartment of Geography and Environment, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue (Room 457),
Boston, MA 02215; bDepartment of Economics, University of Turku, FI-20014, Turku, Finland; and cDepartment of Economics,
Harvard University, 1805 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
Quote from the abstract
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising
greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global
surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find
that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase
in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings
(my emphasis)
So now that I have provided a PEER REVIEWED PAPER that backs up my claims, are you going to continue to call me a liar etc?
LikeLike
Thanks Andy. I’ll read the paper tomorrow.
But just to refresh your memory – here’s what I asked:
“Please provide a link to some of these papers where the 95% confidence range is reported so that we can make an honest and objective assessment. Any paper worth it’s salt will have that information.”
Now neither the abstract or the initial part of the paper has any statistical analysis – they just take the superficial appearance of the data (and refer to the data on another source).
So at first glance I suspect your find does not actually correspond to my request. There doesnt appear to be any statistical support for the superficial claim.
But I’ll check tomorrow.
Meanwhile, perhaps you had better keep searching!
The statistical analysis is the key – without that any superficial claim is meaningless.
LikeLike
Oh I am sorry Ken, I’d better snap to it then.
Actually I was responding to my quote, and I am not interested in running around after your requests.
Since you use this statistical technique to negate the statements in this peer-reviewed paper perhaps you could also apply it to the rest of the 20th century warming
I’ll check back in the morning, otherwise I’ll just assume that you cherry-pick your time periods and statistical techniques when it suits you to support your political viewpoint.
After all, you have openly stated that you are not interested in other peoples views, including those expressed in peer-reviewed papers, that do not conform to your Soviet-Lysenkoist world view.
LikeLike
Get back in your tree, Andy. I have explained why your claims are meaningless.
But think of it this way – with the variability you have in a 10 year period the measured trend is not going to be significantly different from zero. But it is also not going to be significantly different to +2 degree per century either.
That is your fundamental problem. It’s a trick – but a dishonest one.
By the way, perhaps you should also read the paper – its not really about the so-called “hiatus” and it doesn’t exactly support the denier position.
LikeLike
As it happens, I agree that 10 years is a short period and there is a lot of variability. I never claimed that “global warming has stopped” etc, but that the “hiatus” is mentioned in peer reviewed literature.
You continue to use terms like “anti-science” and “denier’ when all I am doing is describing the shape of the data, smoothing out the high frequency noise which is what climate scientists are doing in these papers
LikeLike
You continue to use terms like “anti-science” and “denier’ when all I am doing is describing the shape…
Oh, is that all you are doing?
So you accept the conclusions of NASA and every single scientific community on the planet on the issue of climate change?
You don’t deny or “doubt” or “Just ask Questions” about them?
DOUBT – The climate Reality Project
LikeLike
So you accept the conclusions of NASA and every single scientific community on the planet on the issue of climate change?
Which conclusions are these?
LikeLike
Go direct to the source and skip the middlemen.
Do not pass “GO”. Do not collect $200.
It’s all there in plain English.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Their conclusions are backed up by all the scientific communities on the planet. Check out their official websites for yourself.
NOAA, AAAS, NAS, The Royal Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, CSIRO, British Antarctic Survery, AGU, Royal Society, American Chemical Society, etc.
They are all good.
Look at them all. Every branch of the Earth Sciences is represented.
Climatology does not work in a vacuum.
LikeLike
yes indeed Cedric. and all these organisations concur with the lack of warming for the last decade or so (for whatever reason)
LikeLike
NASA | 2009 Tied For Second Hottest Year Ever Recorded
LikeLike
So you accept the conclusions of NASA and every single scientific community on the planet on the issue of climate change?
LikeLike
So you accept the conclusions of NASA and every single scientific community on the planet on the issue of climate change?
Which conclusions are these?
LikeLike
Which conclusions are these?
All of them. Is English your second language or something?
LikeLike
NASA: Climate Change; A Warming World (HD)
LikeLike
Andy, I have read the paper you found. Interesting what it actually reveals about your “research” methodology.
First – this paper is in no way establishing a hiatus or lack of trend – it does no analysis of temperatures.
It’s purpose was to use a mathematical model to see if they could duplicate the actual temperatures over that 10-year period where an apparent flattening had “prompted some popular commentators to doubt the existing understanding of the relationship among radiative forcing, internal variability, and global surface temperature. This seeming disconnect may be one reason why the public is increasingly sceptical about anthropogenic climate change.”
Its purely a testing of a model.
Secondly – The authors do not conclude that the greenhouse gas anthropogenic forcing has stopped or gone into hiatus. Rather it suggests that other anthropogenic inputs, in particular sulphur inputs from expansion of Chinese coal use, have reduced the net anthropogenic effect. They also consider other natural factors.
No doubt one could find many papers where scientists have used mathematical models to evaluate possible causes of details in the temperature record. And no doubt there is yet to be much consensus on much of this work.
Thirdly – They refer to the likelihood of finding periods where variability prevents detection of any trend. They did not actually do so by testing the temperature record (I would have thought that would be required) but used data produced by model simulations. They say “Analysis of twentieth century simulation indicates that ten year periods with zero or negative temperature trends are likely (p<0.05). This relatively high probability is partially attributed to natural variability."
This is more or less what I have been trying to tell you (p<0.05 refers to the 95% confidence level).
Finally – Your research method.
(a) Clearly your approach is to search for references which appear to say what you belief – warming trends not occurring (confirmation bias). The fact that the link was to the denier site Whats up with that does seem to suggest you kept your search within your ideological silo instead of doing a search of science journal.
(b) You didn’t read the paper, stopping as soon as you find your required words in the abstract. You don’t even appear to have read the entire abstract missing the last sentence:
“we find that recent global temperature records are consistent
with the existing understanding of the relationship among
global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative
forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known
warming and cooling effects.”
So interesting exercise but you have still basically ignored my request.
LikeLike
Andy the gullible idiot.
LikeLike
I wasn’t claiming either that the greenhouse effect had stopped. I find the arguments rather tenuous however. First, I find it unlikely that aerosols magically appeared in the last 10 years to cancel the anthro forcing. Secondly, I can accept the natural variability argument, but doesn’t this suggest that the previous 30 years of warming also had natural variability?
Anyway, whatever.
LikeLike
I am not an advocate for the position the authors take. I suspect as modellers they feel some allegiance to their particular model. However, of course we must consider the role of sulphur inputs, etc, as they seem to have certainly had an influence in the past.
Natural variability is not new – how could it be. I suspect if one looked back over 10 year periods for the last 100 years the confidence limits would be similar and one could conclude that there was no statistically significant trend detectable in most if not all of those periods. After all even with the 100 years of NZ data the confidence limits are still +/- 0.3 degree/century.
10 years is just not long enough to find a significant trend of 1 or 2 degree/century.
LikeLike
I wasn’t claiming blah, blah, I find the arguments rather tenuous, blah, I find it unlikely blah, blah, I can accept the natural variability argument, but blah, blah?
Anyway, whatever.
Yeah, whatever.
Moron.
You have so much doubt and you have so many questions and this science stuff is so very hard. Oh woe!
(yawn)
I’m not going to give you as [Al Gore] did in that film my opinion about climate change because it is as worthless as his.
– Monckton.
“Everything I say I can and will , upon request, verify (…) in the peer-reviewed literature.”
-Monckton
Global scientific conspiracies do not work.
NASA is not lying to you.
potholer54 mirror – Global Climate Change – Debunking Lord Monckton 1
LikeLike
Who said anyone was lying to me?
Moron
LikeLike
You just got your clock cleaned by Ken. You brought up a paper that you clearly didn’t honestly understand and Ken had to spell it out for you using a big crayon and simple words.
Your reaction?
“Uh…yeah, whatever.”
That’s what a moron would do.
You, Andy, are indeed a moron.
Andy, you need pull your brain out of your silly arse and think about it.
For forty years, NASA has studied the climate. They cover every single one of the Earth Sciences. They have had to justify every single penny to completely different political administrations over the years.
NASA’s work is excellent and rich in detail.
Their conclusions are supported and confirmed by other, totally independent scientific communities who also do the hard work that science demands.
You can’t handle that.
It’s you versus NASA.
You can’t bring yourself to accept the conclusions of NASA.
They have a website.
They put their conclusions out there for all to see.
Yet you have to dodge and go all coy.
That’s stupid. It makes you look like a genuine moron.
It’s stupid in the same way that not accepting NASA went to the moon is stupid.
NASA is not lying to you.
There is no global scientific conspiracy.
Duh!
That Mitchell and Webb Look – Moon Landing Sketch
LikeLike
Yeah whatever Cedric
(* yawn *)
LikeLike
“Yeah whatever”
Tell it to someone who cares, Andy. You’ve got nothing.
There is no big spooky-wooky global scientific conspiracy.
Reality is not your friend.
LikeLike
Tell it to someone who cares, Andy. You’ve got nothing.
There is no big spooky-wooky global scientific conspiracy.
From his comments in past I suspect Andy believes the conspiracy is left-wing or Marxist rather than scientific, and that it is facilitated by The Guardian newspaper. Science is just a handicap he has to somehow work around.
LikeLike
Not just Marxist.
“Hard Left” Marxist!
(The super duper type)
They’ve taken over all of Europe, y’know!
2.72 Green is the new Red – Stop Enviro-Communism!
You might know them as environmentalists, enviro-communists, eco-Marxists, neo-Communists or eco-fanatics. They all claim they want to save the world from global warming but their true agenda is to contribute to create a world government lead by the UN or in other ways increase the transfer of resources (redistribute resources) from the developed Western world to the third world. They hope to accomplish this through the distribution of misinformation (propaganda) which they hope will lead to increased taxation of already excessively taxed Europeans and US citizens.
The neo-communist agenda uses politicised science to propagate the global warming scam in order to implement their true agenda; global Marxism. Marxism‘s ultimate goal is to redistribute wealth from successful nations to failed nations, instead of actually trying to fix these broken nations. Politicised science is being used by the cultural Marxist hegemony to manipulate the unsuspecting masses. They are using our trust and faith in science to spread lies and hysteria that will allow Marxists to implement socialist “solutions” to a problem that never actually existed.
Kooks.
LikeLike
Yawn
LikeLike
Andy, I note that Bob D has now admitted the confidence limits in his graph were +/-4 degree per century and that it would be impossible to detect a trend of the reported level in 10 years. (He suggests 50 years would be required).
Really makes Treadgold look bad for claiming the graph “proved” that warming had “halted.”
What a pack of wankers there are on that blog.
LikeLike
Let’s take a trip down memory lane:
🙂
…………………………………………………………….
Cedric Katesby: Do you really believe that the IPCC is interested in “unsubstantiated propoganda”?
Is that how the scientific world operates?
Seriously?”
Andy Scrace: Yes, you got it! Hard left marxist driven statist IPCC.
(…Later…)
Cedric Katesby: How did you find out that the IPCC were all “Hard Left Marxists”?
That’s quite a bit of stunning detective work.
Amazing really.
What evidence do you have to support such a jaw-dropping claim?
How come nobody else (including NASA and the AGU and the USGS and the Royal Society etc) are mentioning this?
Could it be that they all have been taken over by “Hard Left Marxists” too?
All of them?
Really?
Do tell.
Give us all the details.
It sounds…fascinating.
Andy Scrace: As for “hard left”, well you only need to look a the EU and see how it is destroying the UK economy through its marxist totalitarian views and its obsession with climate change.
The lights will go out in about 5 years in theUK.,
Their energy policy has nowhere to go. All driven by IPCC myopia.
Yet later…
I have never suggested that there was a conspiracy theory.
My dear Andy Scrace, I believe you.
Of course you’re not suggesting a conspiracy theory.
Absolutely.
Sure. 🙂
You just think that the IPPC is secretly run by “Hard Left Marxists”.
Which (of course) you believe because…the whole of the European Union in the 21st century is run by “Hard Left Marxists”.
Why, absolutely everybody knows and understands this.
Eminently reasonable.
No conspiracy or paraniod delusions to see here, folks!
……………………………………………………………………
One of the best threads ever.
Comedy gold.
That exchange happened just over two years ago. So the UK only has three years left before the lights go out. Horrors!
(Go on Andy, yawn again. None of us mind in the slightest. It’s not like you are left with much else. Feel free.)
LikeLike
Well I would never claim that 10 years of data “prove” anything. As you point out, 17 years seems to be the accepted range to get a statistically meaningful dataset.
In any case, science doesn’t work by “proving”. You can disprove a theory, but not prove it, at least not according to the illustrious Karl Popper (since you seem to be interested in Philosophy of Science)
LikeLike
Good on you Andy. Now go tell that to Treadgold.
LikeLike
Well I would never claim that 10 years of data “prove” anything. As you point out, 17 years seems to be the accepted range to get a statistically meaningful dataset.
You flatly reject a zombie PRATT?
Wow.
I’ve never seen that before.
Whatever next? Are you going to start using multiple, independent, primary sources as opposed to relying on Internet gossip or the media for your science information?
I’m impressed.
8a. Climate Change – Phil Jones and the ‘no warming for 15 years’
LikeLike